Apple's iPod/iPhone connector was one of the advantages they had over everyone else because that connector makes a reliable connection every time, unlike flimsy Micro USB connectors. The connectors on Micro USB cables were designed to be fragile to avoid damaging devices and often wear to the point of being useless in a matter of months. So much for not having to buy new cables for every phone, I have to buy new cables every 6 months. I'm all for having an industry standard, but not if the standard sucks.
Back when Apple introduced the Dock Connector, Micro USB didn't exist yet. You couldn't even charge over USB, because the standards to push more power over USB weren't done yet.
What I love are the cases with bluetooth keyboards for the iPad. Every one I've seen has a micro-USB plug for charging.
And since you don't recharge the keyboard very often, finding that second cable might be a problem, especially if the battery dies while on a business trip. I can just imagine an iPad user bumming a micro-USB charger from an Android user to charge their accessory.
The Android Open Accessory library provides a basic communication channel with devices via USB. What you do with it is up to you.
(It doesn't have any inherent support for audio, and you can't route the system audio over it. But you could write code which outputs a custom audio channel from your app.)
Keep in mind that the Open Accessory library uses a custom protocol, so won't work with things such as a standard USB DAC.
One of my previous cellphones (a Motorola) used the USB connection for a headset that was analog. You could even buy adapters. So yes, analog over the USB connection.
You mean this thing? "This item is NOT compatible with ANY LG or SAMSUNG Phones! Will ONLY work with Motorola Micro-USB Phones!" - I smell a non-standard USB.
Please! Please! If Apple sued other manufacturers over violating their "Milk the customer by using a proprietary dock incompatible with everything else" patent, then
Samsung would again be in a lot of trouble. The difference being of course is that Apple's "proprietary dock incompatible with everything else" is compatible with thousands of peripherals (including cars).
Well for starters, that latter image isn't exactly what it appears to be at first glance.
The Samsung tablet has a widescreen aspect, while the Apple tablet is 4:3 - they've been photoshopped to make their dimensions seem the same.
That is the difference between functional and ornamental - the changes to the design are purely functional and don't change the copying of the ornamental design.
Which is exactly what a German court has already decided.
PS: your sidestepping the issue of PADDs has been noted.
The external corner radius must be at least slightly more than twice the material thickness.
The whole device isn't even an inch thick - again: why would the outer corners need to have a curvature of half an inch radius? Can't you answer a simple question? And no, hiding your inability behind a wall of words is not an option.
How many slashvertisments are we going to have? Apple's paid sychophants are flooding sites with this stuff in attempts to kill sales of existing Android mini-slates. They are desperate to ensure the low end market doesn't buy their "apps" from Google's Play store.
Well, do you think things would be better if people now bought existing Android mini-slates - and then returned them in two months to buy a iPad Mini?
In response to another article, I and several others brought up the LG KE850 (aka the LG PRada) as prior art with regards to the iPhone's design patents. The LG KE850 fits the bill for 35 U.S.C. 102(a) since it had been described in the press long before the iPhone's announcement.
Quite a few other devices can claim prior art under this.
LG KE850 Prada, announced Jan. 2007, [online], [retrieved on Feb. 20, 2007]. Retrieved from Internet,ahref=http://www.gsmarena.com/rel=url2html-22064http://www.gsmarena.com/>. cited by examiner.
Checked and seen as not invalidating Apple's patent application.
Well in that case they you guys are not very good at your job then are you because simple web searches on dubious software patents invariable turn masses of prior art.
Yeah, it has nothing to do with the fact that what most people claim is prior art isn't actually.
The patent office only checks for prior art in existing patents.
False. Patently false, actually. Just look at the average patent, and you will find references (aka prior art checked against) that aren't patents. E.g. for the iPad design patent that would be:
Other References
Andre et al., U.S. Appl. No. 29/180,558 entitled "Electronic Device", filed Mar. 17, 2004..
"HP Compaq Tablet PC tc1100", downloaded Aug. 27, 2004..
"Tablet PC V1100", downloaded Aug. 27, 2004..
"ViewPad 1000", downloaded Aug. 27, 2004..
The size of the corner and edge radius is dependent upon several design considerations. "A few milimeters" does not suffice in all cases.
Radii up to a half inch are commonplace. The factors involved are the thickness/stiffness of the injected material, the strength of the mold used, and what the intended use scenario for the finished product is. In many circumstances, an angle less than 90 degrees and a larger radius distributes stresses more efficiently than.a true 90 degree wall intersection with a small radius. As pointed out by the GP, the radius is added to assist in demolding the part. Likewise, a 5deg draft angle is also frequently incorporated as a standard practice.
I have dealt with enough diecast and molded plastic parts to know way more about them than a typical armchair pundit on slashdot; I work with the shit professionally.
GP is correct.
We are talking about the outer edges of small electronic devices. GP is as obtuse as you are. Or give me a technological reason why the edges of the iPad as well as those of the Samsung Tabs have to be that round when those of the competitors don't (because they obviously aren't).
They filed suit because they also wanted some of the money if Apple had won against Microsoft. Which they could only get indirectly, because Windows was much closer to the Mac than to anything Xerox ever did.
Next thing you know Star Trek episodes will be prior art.
Uh, regarding the rounded-corner rectangle design patent thing, how are they not prior art? Design patents are specifically for an appearance/shape, irrespective of function or purpose.
How can people claim this is prior art for the iPad, but these look nothing alike?
These are things that are more valuable than most "geeks" will ever admit to the willingness of people to buy, use, and feel good about certain products, and are therefore incredibly valuable when they're done right and worth spending a lot of money to develop a great solution.
No. Those things are gimmicks that ONLY "geeks" notice, the general populous caring much more about what the device can ACTUALLY do whether than precisely how it does it.
At leasts that's what people calling themselves "geeks" proclaim, who for the hell of it can't figure out why people buy Apple products, despite their constant predictions that they wouldn't.
Slashdot Mirror
Apple's iPod/iPhone connector was one of the advantages they had over everyone else because that connector makes a reliable connection every time, unlike flimsy Micro USB connectors. The connectors on Micro USB cables were designed to be fragile to avoid damaging devices and often wear to the point of being useless in a matter of months. So much for not having to buy new cables for every phone, I have to buy new cables every 6 months. I'm all for having an industry standard, but not if the standard sucks.
Back when Apple introduced the Dock Connector, Micro USB didn't exist yet. You couldn't even charge over USB, because the standards to push more power over USB weren't done yet.
What I love are the cases with bluetooth keyboards for the iPad. Every one I've seen has a micro-USB plug for charging.
And since you don't recharge the keyboard very often, finding that second cable might be a problem, especially if the battery dies while on a business trip. I can just imagine an iPad user bumming a micro-USB charger from an Android user to charge their accessory.
http://store.apple.com/uk/product/MD099ZM/A
The Android Open Accessory library provides a basic communication channel with devices via USB. What you do with it is up to you.
(It doesn't have any inherent support for audio, and you can't route the system audio over it. But you could write code which outputs a custom audio channel from your app.)
Keep in mind that the Open Accessory library uses a custom protocol, so won't work with things such as a standard USB DAC.
(For that, you'd want to use the USB Host mode APIs: http://developer.android.com/guide/topics/usb/host.html. The same caveats about not being able to route the system audio still apply.)
So they send analog signals over USB?
One of my previous cellphones (a Motorola) used the USB connection for a headset that was analog. You could even buy adapters. So yes, analog over the USB connection.
You mean this thing? "This item is NOT compatible with ANY LG or SAMSUNG Phones! Will ONLY work with Motorola Micro-USB Phones!" - I smell a non-standard USB.
Stop saying how USB could be used for all those things - show us one mobile device that actually uses USB for at least two of those.
Please! Please! If Apple sued other manufacturers over violating their "Milk the customer by using a proprietary dock incompatible with everything else" patent, then
Samsung would again be in a lot of trouble. The difference being of course is that Apple's "proprietary dock incompatible with everything else" is compatible with thousands of peripherals (including cars).
So what's wrong with racists? These days they're the only honest people left.
Cue to the Hungarian anti-Semitic politician who turns out has Jewish grandparents and wasn't to honest about it. http://www.thespec.com/news/world/article/780622--anti-semitic-hungarian-politician-discovers-jewish-roots
PPS: the German court of course had access to the hardware, so "it was photoshopped" is also no excuse.
Well for starters, that latter image isn't exactly what it appears to be at first glance.
The Samsung tablet has a widescreen aspect, while the Apple tablet is 4:3 - they've been photoshopped to make their dimensions seem the same.
That is the difference between functional and ornamental - the changes to the design are purely functional and don't change the copying of the ornamental design.
Which is exactly what a German court has already decided.
PS: your sidestepping the issue of PADDs has been noted.
Minimum rules for molded items:
The external corner radius must be at least slightly more than twice the material thickness.
The whole device isn't even an inch thick - again: why would the outer corners need to have a curvature of half an inch radius? Can't you answer a simple question? And no, hiding your inability behind a wall of words is not an option.
It's a screen and a motherboard encased in plastic and metal. Design hipsters fap about these things, apparently.
Quite unlike the Galaxy Nexus, which is a screen and a motherboard encased in plastic and metal. Geek hipsters fap about these things, apparently.
Who cares how well written it is, it is still content free. Nobody has leaked images yet
He said, not reading TFA http://blog.zoogue.com/ipad/exclusive-ipad-nano-images-surface/ http://9to5mac.com/2012/07/30/case-makers-start-teasing-their-smaller-ipad-cases-show-off-ipad-mini-renders/ - at least the back seems to be well covered.
How many slashvertisments are we going to have? Apple's paid sychophants are flooding sites with this stuff in attempts to kill sales of existing Android mini-slates. They are desperate to ensure the low end market doesn't buy their "apps" from Google's Play store.
Well, do you think things would be better if people now bought existing Android mini-slates - and then returned them in two months to buy a iPad Mini?
In response to another article, I and several others brought up the LG KE850 (aka the LG PRada) as prior art with regards to the iPhone's design patents. The LG KE850 fits the bill for 35 U.S.C. 102(a) since it had been described in the press long before the iPhone's announcement.
Quite a few other devices can claim prior art under this.
Errm, three weeks is hardly "long before". Not to mention that the "descriptions" were mostly guess-work. Anyway: http://www.patentgenius.com/patent/D558757.html
Other References:
LG KE850 Prada, announced Jan. 2007, [online], [retrieved on Feb. 20, 2007]. Retrieved from Internet ,ahref=http://www.gsmarena.com/rel=url2html-22064http://www.gsmarena.com/>. cited by examiner.
Checked and seen as not invalidating Apple's patent application.
The problem is that the examiners themselves fail on recognizing the novelty or obviousness. A rectangular object with rounded corners? Really?
No, unreally. Have you even looked at any of the patents?
Well in that case they you guys are not very good at your job then are you because simple web searches on dubious software patents invariable turn masses of prior art.
Yeah, it has nothing to do with the fact that what most people claim is prior art isn't actually.
The patent office only checks for prior art in existing patents.
False. Patently false, actually. Just look at the average patent, and you will find references (aka prior art checked against) that aren't patents. E.g. for the iPad design patent that would be:
The size of the corner and edge radius is dependent upon several design considerations. "A few milimeters" does not suffice in all cases.
Radii up to a half inch are commonplace. The factors involved are the thickness/stiffness of the injected material, the strength of the mold used, and what the intended use scenario for the finished product is. In many circumstances, an angle less than 90 degrees and a larger radius distributes stresses more efficiently than.a true 90 degree wall intersection with a small radius. As pointed out by the GP, the radius is added to assist in demolding the part. Likewise, a 5deg draft angle is also frequently incorporated as a standard practice.
I have dealt with enough diecast and molded plastic parts to know way more about them than a typical armchair pundit on slashdot; I work with the shit professionally.
GP is correct.
We are talking about the outer edges of small electronic devices. GP is as obtuse as you are. Or give me a technological reason why the edges of the iPad as well as those of the Samsung Tabs have to be that round when those of the competitors don't (because they obviously aren't).
rounding corners is an aid to manufacturing and safety sharp edges cause cuts.
Oddly enough, most of the designs presented by Fidler have very pointy edges.
Xerox did file suit. http://www.nytimes.com/1989/12/15/business/company-news-xerox-sues-apple-computer-over-macintosh-copyright.html They didn't win the suit but they did actually file it.
They filed suit because they also wanted some of the money if Apple had won against Microsoft. Which they could only get indirectly, because Windows was much closer to the Mac than to anything Xerox ever did.
Yes, but invalidating the patents is more to their benefit.
Well, somebody could then come to the conclusion that invalidating their 3000+ design patents would be a good idea.
Just ignore the working prototype.....
http://www.kitguru.net/apple/jules/shots-that-challenge-apples-ability-to-beat-samsung/
Apart from the fact that it wasn't a working prototype. Which the professor says himself. Oooops.
They are if the original design was done in MacPaint....
Coincidently, the video has about as many shots showing Macs as the tablet itself.
Next thing you know Star Trek episodes will be prior art.
Uh, regarding the rounded-corner rectangle design patent thing, how are they not prior art? Design patents are specifically for an appearance/shape, irrespective of function or purpose.
How can people claim this is prior art for the iPad, but these look nothing alike?
These are things that are more valuable than most "geeks" will ever admit to the willingness of people to buy, use, and feel good about certain products, and are therefore incredibly valuable when they're done right and worth spending a lot of money to develop a great solution.
No. Those things are gimmicks that ONLY "geeks" notice, the general populous caring much more about what the device can ACTUALLY do whether than precisely how it does it.
At leasts that's what people calling themselves "geeks" proclaim, who for the hell of it can't figure out why people buy Apple products, despite their constant predictions that they wouldn't.